Historically, common law courts probably appeared as a means of
stopping dueling, fighting and other uses of force to resolve a
conflict.

Probably, friends form both sides got tired of joining in and getting
hacked up along with their hot-headed friends. As a matter of
self-preservation, friends from both sides decided it made more sense
to secure their friends and get them to agree to go to a
mediator/judge in order to determine a just solution that both
parties could live with.

These early judges quickly learned. not only how to find a solution,
but how to present their ideas in such a fashion that it appealed to
all parties or at least to those without an emotional interest. They
had to create enough peer group pressure to ensure all parties would
mostly follow the court's advice.

Many of these were religious leaders. Sometimes, they were
thoughtful and wise people. Additionally, they could apply the
written or oral traditions of their religions to the dispute. This
added more weight to the decision.

Common law is not what some idiot attorney says it is. Common law
does look at precedents. It is not bound to precedents. The
function of common law is restitution. You may use the words,
"Natural Law", if that will help you overcome preconceived notions.

One definition of common law worthy of some thought is, "Common Law
is what a Fully Informed and Fully Empowered Jury says it is."

Many people will start on the game of, "what if?", while keeping
their thinking tied to the legal mess we have currently.

While you work this thought over in your head, keep these things in
mind:

1. The decision has to appeal to a lot of people or there is no peer
group pressure to bring to bear.

2. There is no one to go out and steal money form other people to pay
to arrest and hold in jail other people for smoking, or reading
titillating material, or meat eating, enjoying their own bodies or
any other politically incorrect action. There ain't no "politically
correct" that doesn't fall before the advantages of free trade and
tolerance.

3. If you discover a conundrum, ask if it is a problem in a free
world where you don't have the infrastructure for tyranny.

Some of the problems with dueling include; there are some bad people
out there who are very talented in their destructive capabilities.

Randy Weaver might have a decent chance against Lon Haruchi in a duel
for murdering his wife, Vicki Weaver, at Ruby Ridge or other members
of that FBI Swat team who shot his son in the back. However if
someone of Haruchi's ilk had murdered the family of a young boy and
the boy challenges him, Haruchi would choose sniper rifles at 300
yards and the boy is dead.

If you are the aggrieved party, offering a professional offender
their choice of weapons would get a lot of people killed.

I think that dueling would cause the death of a lot of people for no
good cause. You have the right to do it. It is not a means of
insuring justice in any society.

In a free society, there will be competing courts that achieve more
good than bad or no court exist for long. Bad courts can only exist
with a supporting infrastructure of tyranny, like we have today.

The rights to common law courts were taken from the people and they
were told they would have to use the judges appointed by the Kings.
These were Dukes and other supporters of the Tyrants. They would use
the courts as a means to extract additional monies from the serfs.
You know, that's a lot like things are today.

Once we have unfettered competition, there will be courts that help
achieve justice, peace and reasonable enforcement of contract. Until
that day, we will have the mess we have currently... and against the
legalized injustice we have currently, I suppose, even dueling looks
good.

Looks like the events on the attempted "shoe bomb" flight would
indicate that this trend to passive airline passengers is ending ...
Not only did the flight attendants fight to subdue the schmuck, but
apparently some of the passengers got involved ...

I don't think we will ever see another 09/11, at least not one
lauched from a hijacked airliner ...

I'm not looking to defend what JF did in the 70s, but this needs to
be squelched:

Barbara Cunningham said:

I've never figured out exactly what Jane Fonda believes in other
than the promotion of Jane Fonda. And she was directly
responsible for several deaths of POW's during the Vietnam War.
And, as best I can gather, she is unrepentant for her actions.

Truth is, that stuff about the POWs she's supposed to have caused the
deaths of, is an urban myth, disputed and refuted by some of the very
POWs she is supposed to have so affected! Not good to spread that
level of calumny, when it has been disproven. (PLEASE don't ask me
for the source; it's been debunked for years now ...)

The things she DID do were pretty unforgivable, but at the time I
think she basically believed in what she was doing, just lacked the
sense to do with some ... well, sense! (Joan Baez also opposed the
war, perhaps even more consistently, but she did her protesting at
home, where it could not be mistaken for 'aid and comfort' ...

[Editor's Note: read a very good, unbiased account of Jane Fonda's
activities and the truth about POW treatment associated with her
'visits' at
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/weekly/aa110399.htm
Be sure to read Michael Benge's article, linked therein. Personally,
this Viet Nam combat veteran wishes nothing but the worst for Jane
Fonda ... one of few people I allow myself to actively hate. - jct]

Hmmm. I read that entire web page, top to bottom, and I missed where
it mentioned the FDA. It did mention that the research is now more
expensive than it was, but the only folks that seem to be blamed by
the web page were the managed-care folks who now want more assurance
that the drugs actually work.

Perhaps Mr. Walker or Ms. Wells would bless us with actual excerpts
from the study indicating how the FDA significantly increases the
cost of development. Simply requiring studies of safety and
effectiveness hardly seems to be a damning indictment of the FDA.

They claim that the cost of getting one new drug into service is
$802 million including capital costs. No wonder there's not much
progress.

And that's absolutely unacceptable! Think of all of the people
suffering and dying needlessly!

That high price certainly is unfortunate. But it remains to be shown
that it can be done at a much lower price without sacrificing
reasonable controls for safety and effectiveness. The cited study
seems to be a slender reed on which to build an indictment of the
FDA.

We need to get rid of the FDA, the DEA and the Controlled
Substances Act. We've already got Underwriters Laboratories and
Consumer Reports. If any other entity needs to exist to monitor
drugs, I'm sure the free market would produce one.

I don't doubt for a moment that the FDA increases the cost of drug
development without producing any commensurate benefit; and I fully
agree that the FDA, the DEA and the Controlled Substances Act should
be eliminated, but neither the letter from Mr. Walker and Ms. Wells,
nor the Tufts study itself seems to be the compelling argument for
that elimination.

... back when the Army was sending smallpox blankets to every
native American Indian reservation on the continent.

It's a rather commonplace story that the army sent smallpox blankets
to some Indians at some time. I suppose this story has some basis in
fact, but I've never before heard it as "every ... reservation".
Does Mr. Davidson have some authority for this story, and
particularly for the "every ... reservation" claim?

I gather that Bill Bunn would rather believe that every native
American Indian in North America was better off having their land
stolen, their treaties with the USA feral gummint ignored, their
wells poisoned, and their way of life eliminated. Or, perhaps he
hasn't heard of the literary technique of exaggeration as it may be
used in sarcasm, irony, or for emphasis.

One author notes, "The truth is that many states--California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New
York, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, and
Virginia is an incomplete list--placed bounties on Indian scalps,
poisoned Indian water sources, gave them smallpox infected blankets,
burned their villages, and destroyed their crops." That author is
J.W. Smith and he footnotes Austin A. Murphy, F. Waters, and Ward
Churchill on this point.

But, gosh, Bill, if the story only "has some basis in fact" as you
say, does that make your friends in the USA feral gummint great
people? They didn't kill every single Native American Indian with
smallpox. Some, they saved for starvation. Some were left on
reservations to grow up with alcoholism, hopelessness, and suicide.
Just what are you saying, Bill? That the USA feral gummint is a
great institution? That we should love and admire the Great White
Fathers in government who screwed over Indians, claimed it was for
their good and ours, and then went on to grant a few tribes the
opportunity to make money through casino gambling?

It appears that the motto for Bill Bunn is "let's not go overboard on
anything." I take Heinlein's view: take life in big bites;
moderation is for monks.

As far as I'm concerned if one person in any government undertook to
act officially by killing one individual with smallpox, that's way
too many. Any such behavior should be punished vigorously, but has
not been punished. It is up to those individuals who seek freedom to
understand what has gone before, and if by exaggerating I can provoke
some investigation or inquiry or examination of history, great.

As an alternative to me proving that every single Indian reservation
on the continent was visited by a smallpox blanket, I suggest you
prove that killing only one child with smallpox is such a minor
matter as to be ignored in our contemplation of how to be more free.

I gather that Bill Bunn would rather believe that every native
American Indian in North America was better off having their land
stolen, their treaties with the USA feral gummint ignored, their
wells poisoned, and their way of life eliminated.

Really Jim, I can't imagine where that came from. I only asked for
more information.

Or, perhaps he hasn't heard of the literary technique of
exaggeration as it may be used in sarcasm, irony, or for
emphasis.

Sorry I failed to see that it was intended as exaggeration for
sarcasm, irony or emphasis.

The "inoculation" of Indians with smallpox blankets is admittedly
an example of British atrocity, as well:
[...]

Thanks for the references.

BTW, in a book on California Indians, I read that Indians were being
sold as de facto slaves in LA as late as 1870 -- five years after the
civil war ended. The state law provided that any off-reservation
Indians who were not "gainfully employed" (or something like that)
could be forced into work (for their own good, I'm sure). Sorry, I
have no reference for that assertion.

But, gosh, Bill, if the story only "has some basis in fact" as
you say, does that make your friends in the USA feral gummint
great people?

They are certainly not my friends, nor great people.

They didn't kill every single Native American Indian with
smallpox. Some, they saved for starvation. Some were left on
reservations to grow up with alcoholism, hopelessness, and
suicide. Just what are you saying, Bill?

I thought that if the smallpox blanket ploy was used more than a few
times, I'd like some reference for that fact.

That the USA feral gummint is a great institution? That we
should love and admire the Great White Fathers in government who
screwed over Indians, claimed it was for their good and ours, and
then went on to grant a few tribes the opportunity to make money
through casino gambling?

That's certainly not my viewpoint, and if you thought I was
suggesting that, then I must apologize for the lack of clarity in my
message.

It appears that the motto for Bill Bunn is "let's not go
overboard on anything."

That may be fair enough. I'd put it as "let's not deceive ourselves
or each other with our exaggerations and/or oversimplifications". I
find enthusiasts often seem to do that.

I take Heinlein's view: take life in big bites; moderation is for
monks.

Heinlein is my favorite writer, at least of fiction. BTW, I have a
web page of recommended reading at http://www.reninet.com/maile/billbunn/Books.htm.

As far as I'm concerned if one person in any government undertook
to act officially by killing one individual with smallpox, that's
way too many. Any such behavior should be punished vigorously,
but has not been punished.

Agreed. While the perpetrators are long dead, perhaps an
acknowledgement by our current government would be most appropriate.

It is up to those individuals who seek freedom to understand what
has gone before, and if by exaggerating I can provoke some
investigation or inquiry or examination of history, great.

Again, agreed. And again, I apologize for failing to see that you
had intended it to be seen as exaggeration.

As an alternative to me proving that every single Indian
reservation on the continent was visited by a smallpox blanket, I
suggest you prove that killing only one child with smallpox is
such a minor matter as to be ignored in our contemplation of how
to be more free.

Really Jim, I can't imagine where that came from. I only asked
for more information.

Okay, then. Maybe I went overboard. It appears from your current
response that you aren't a pro-government ogre.

Thanks for the references.

I hope these help. I'm often capable of finding references to
information that I cite in my breezy and casual fashion. The nice
thing about writing for TLE is that I can state my views without
footnotes, or include footnotes if I'm inclined.

Sorry, I have no reference for that assertion.

No sweat. I've spent enough time there to be happy to believe the
worst of California state government without references.

I'd like some reference for that fact.

Cool. Now you have some. I feel confident that more may turn up at
your local library or in the history section of your local bookstore.
I offer no apology for not having included references in my item
printed in TLE and none for the limited number of references in my
recent response to you. If you're inclined to accept, I would be
happy to apologize to you for assuming that you were favoring Bureau
of Indian Affairs policies simply on the basis of your rather terse
request for reference materials.

Heinlein is one of my favorite authors. You might like to read some
of L. Neil Smith's stuff, too. I'm engrossed in The American Zone just now.

Agreed. While the perpetrators are long dead, perhaps an
acknowledgement by our current government would be most
appropriate.

I think that would be a good start. And some such mention by the
British government for the actions by Amherst would be good, too. It
seems to me that there is probably an estate left by Amherst, and
there is certainly a successor government to the then-extant British
and USA governments, and successors to the governments of the several
states. I'd be tickled pink to see the descendants of the families
which survived the smallpox epidemics (which killed around 50% of
Indians in affected tribes) sue the various estates, heirs, successor
governments, et al. Of course, that would raise taxes, which might
polarize more people to bring about the demise of some of these
governments.

Death by "Gun Control": The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament,
by Aaron Zelman and Richard W. Stevens. The new book from JPFO.

Why does JPFO exist? What motivates us year after year? You can find the
answers in our brand new book.

People have asked us to present the whole JPFO argument in one place. We
have done it. Available now in an easy-reading format and a handy size, the new
book is entitled Death by Gun Control: The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament.

The message is simple: Disarmed people are neither free nor safe - they
become the criminals' prey and the tyrants' playthings. When the civilians are
defenseless and their government goes bad, however, thousands and millions of
innocents die.